Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20240424235848

    Uploaded by

    xerox24 ibm
    5 views64 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views64 pages

    20240424235848

    Uploaded by

    xerox24 ibm

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 64
    62 IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT Present: Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, XVI ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, NANDIGAMA. Friday, this the 28'" day of December, 2023. ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2016 Between: 1.Karaku Yesudasu, S/o Daniel, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Properties, Door No.6-657, Kakani Nager, Jaggaiahpeta Town and Mandal, Krishna District. (Died) 2.Karaku Sujatha, W/o Late Yesudasu, Retired Employee, Aged 64 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpeta. 3.Rentla Suneetha, W/o. Babu Rao, House wife, Aged about 42 years, R/o D.No.9-5- 54/14/6, Flat No.207, R.R Enclave, L.B. Colony, Sivajipalaem, Visakhapatnam ~ 530013 4.Jangam Sukanya, W/o Swamydasu, House wife, Aged 40 years, R/o D.No.6-985/1A, Santhinagar, Jaggaiahpeta Town, Krishna District. 5.Karaku Ravi Kumar, S/o Yesudasu, Cultivation, Aged 38 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpeta. 6.Karaku Bhanumath, W/o Late Yesudasu, Dependant, Aged 36 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpeta. (Plaintiff 2 to 6 are added as per orders in IA No, 806/2017 dt 22.9.2017.) Plaintiffs And 1.Tatineni Naga Babu, S/o Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Employee, R/o D.No.24-3, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 2.Tatineni Satyavathi, W/o. Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged 53 years, House wife, R/o D.No.24-3, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Krishna District. Dodda Subba Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, “Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Cultivation, R/o Bhiniavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 4:Dodda Rama Devi, W/o Subba Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, Cultivation, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 5.Adapa Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Brahma Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Cultivation, Cultivation, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 6.Mandadapu Purnachandra Rao, S/o. Lakshminarayana, Hindu, Aged about 59 years, Properties, R/o.Gowravaram Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 7.Vadlamudi Sambasiva Rao, S/o Venkatrayudu, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, Properties, R/o. Door No.21-17/1-18-1, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada City, Krishna ..Defendants. District. The suit i.e., OS No.27/2016 is filed for declaring the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers, agents and associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. Further sought for declaring the sale deeds vide document Nos.3118/2012, 3119/2012 and 3120/2012 of Sub Registrar, Nandigama are invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit. Plaint presented on: 11.07.2011 Plaint numbered on: 11.07.2011 PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM: A) As this is suit for declaration that the plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the absolute owners and enjoyers of item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants, followers and relatives from interfering with the 2 to 6 plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties in any manner what-so-ever, it is valued U/sec. 24(b) of Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act VII of 1956, as follows: Market Value of Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property: AC,3-00 cents X Rs.4,50,000-00 Rs.13,50,000-00 ~As2(half of its Value is Rs.6,75,000-00 10.2 of Plai $ AC.4-40 cents X Rs.4,40,000-00 Rs.19,80,000-00 1/2 (half of its Value is Rs.9,90,000-00 64 Market Value of Item No.3 of Plaint Schedule Property: AC.3-00 cents X Rs.4,50,000-00 Rs.13,50,000-00 1/2 (half of its Value is Rs.6,75,000-00 Rs.23,40,000-00 Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is on Rs.23,40,000/- a court fee of Rs.25,826,/- U/s.24(b) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act, 1956. Cause of action for the suit arose on and from 17-11-2004 when the first plaintiff admittedly purchased the plaint schedule property under three different agreement of Sale from the defendants 3, 4 and 5, on and from 25.02.2007 when the first plaintiff got issued Registered Legal notices to the defendants 3, 4 and 5 demanding them for execution of sale deeds, on and from 07.03.2007 when the defendants 3, 4 and 5 sent reply notices having admitted the execution of three different contracts of sales in favour of the 1st plaintiff, on and from 28-03-2007 when the defendants 3, 4 and 5 in collusion with the defendants 6 and 7 have executed collusive sale deeds, on and from 11.06.2007 when the defendants 6 and 7 have also in tum colluded with the defendants 1 and 2 and executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 in the mean while, when the 1st plaintiff filed three different suits against the defendants 3, 4 and 5 and obtained the decrees and also obtained three registered sale deeds from the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, on and from 17.04.2013 when the Ist plaintiff was inducted in possession of the plaint schedule property, on and from 13.07.2013 when the 1st plaintiff received suit summons in O.S.No.94/2013 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, on and from 19.07.2017 when the 1st plaintiff died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 6 as his legal heirs to succeed his estate including the plaint schedule properties and subsequently so at Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Jaggaiahpeta Sub-Registry, Krishna District, where the plaint schedule property is situated, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. These suits are listed on 07.11.2023 for final hearing in the Presence of Sri, K. V. Subbarao and Sri. A.V.Ramana Murthy, advocates for Plaintiff No.2 to 6, Plaintiff No.1 died, and Sri. B. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Defendants No.1 and 2, defendants Nos.3 to 6 are exparte in OS No.27/2016, and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows: i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed. i) that by declaring that the plaintiffs 2 to 6 are absolute owners ‘and enjoyers of item Nos.1to 3 of the plaint schedule properties and they are entitled for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2. ill) that their men, servants, followers and relatives from _ Interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties. 6 iv) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1,22,578/- towards costs of the suit. V) that the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil (a5 no bill of costs filed). (Plaint Schedule is herewith attached to decree) Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 28th day of December, 2023. < rae Ce fi 2 S, XVI Addl. District & Sessions f %e Judge, NANDIGAMA. | \ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS. % MEMO OF COSTS sie FOR FOR DEFENDANT | cet _| PLAINTIFF _ cee i. | Stamp on vakalat 2-00 2. | Plaint Fees 25,826-00 3._| Process 200-00 4. [Witness Bata 150-00 5. | Pleaders Fees (Senior) 72,000-00| Costs not filed Gunior) 24,000-00 : Writing Charges 200-00 TO 7. | Type Charges 200-00 1,22,578-00 CK re. XVI ADJ/NDG. NB; The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all zt exhibits, whith they may wish to preserve, as the record is liable to be destroyed. wjthin 3 years from the date of Decree or order. “i TRUE COPY ADE. © . eyes NANDIG = cANO SST/WU ee anne PE LS ADO. Lg oA ROT IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE; KRISHNA, AT NANDIGAMA O.S.No. 72016..°" Between: i y eet an [UjAlo is As } Karaku Yesudasu(cnd) WF) Kaasiton GIANT Ss oe And ») spun Seales 7% f : 1. Tatineni Naga Babu. 4 ents deni ore) Sh San 0 ovsbare o> 22-9240 2. Tatineni Satyavathi. —$\ 3. Dodda Subba Reddy. o wae re Tie » Seo patty oo ee 4. Dodda Rama Devi. 5. Adapa Venkateswara Reddy. 6. Mandadapu Purnachandra Rao. 7. Vadlamudi Sambasiva Rao. .---Defendants. PLAINT SCHEDULE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF. ITEM NO.1: Seri Dry Land of Ac,3-00 (Heets.1.210) ie., Ac.1-49 cents in R.S.No.449-1B and Ac.1-51 cents in R.S.No.449-2,,comprised in single plot, situated in Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Jaggaiahpet $.R.O., Krishna District, being bounded by: East: Government Donka. South: Lands of Vemula Satyanarayana & others, West: Land of the Plaintiff purchased from Dodda Subba Reddy(D-3), North: Land of plaintiff purchased from Adapa Venkateswara Reddy(D-5). Market Value of Property is 1/2 (half) of its Value is - Rs.13,50,000-00 Rs. 6.75,000-00 ITEM Nt (A) Seri Dry Land of Ac.3-00-(Hects.1.210) in R.S No. Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Jaggaiahpet $.R.O., Krishna District, being bounded by: East: Land of the Plaintiff purchased from Dodla Rama Devi (D4). South; Land of Ragam kotaiah, West: Lands of Shaik Gaffar and others. North: Lands of Tumuluri Venkayamma and others. R.S.No.448-2 and Ac.0-50 cents in R.S.No449-1D, comprised in single plot, situated in Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Jaggaiahpet S.R.O., Krishna District, being (B). Seri Dry Land of 1-40 cents (Hects.0.1560) ite. Ac.0-90 cents in bounded by: enol. Lerten \ 2 East: Land of Pasam VenkataRamaiah and Government Donka. South : Land of the plaintiff purchased from Dodla Rama Devi (D4). \ West: Lands of Gorre Lakshmi Narayana and others, INTE North: Government Donka. Market Value of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Properties are . Rs.19,80,000-00 “ 1/2 (half) of its Value is . Rs. 9,90,000-00 pew ITEM NO.3:- / ee Seri Dry Land of Ac.3-00 (Hects.1.210) i.e., Ac.1-60 cents in R.S.No448-2 and Ac.1-40/ cents in R.S.No.449-1B, comprised in single plot, situated in Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Jaggaiahpet S.R.O., Krishna District, being bounded by: East: Land of the plaintiff purchased from Dodda Subba Reddy (D-3). South: Land of the plaintiff purchased from Dodda Subba Reddy (D-3). West: Land of Tumuturi Venkayasuna, eae etna North: Land of Gorre Lakshmi Narayana. Market Value of Property is . / 1/2 (half) of its Value is Rs.13,50,000-00 Rs. 6.75,000-00 Be pleased to consider, iy Z eats Yttee dig i [ Kiel’ aime PLAINTIFF I, the plaintiff herein, do hereby declare that what all stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and I believe the same to be true and correct. ‘ ules Ye pee ste Nandigama, » Date:!1-7-2016. PLAINTIFF ride -echedile steak te decvee IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NANDIGAMA. Present:- SRI. V. SRINIVASA RAO, XVI Addl. District Judge, Nandigama is the 28" day of December, 2023. Original Suit No. 94 of 2013: Between: 1) Tatineni Naga Babu, S/o Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Employee, R/o D.No.24-3, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 2) Tatineni Satyavathi, W/o. Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged 53 years, House wife, R/o D.No.24-3, ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Krishna District. sees Plaintiffs, And 1. Karaku Yesudasu, S/o Daniel, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, Retired Employee, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 2. Ballam Arjuna, S/o Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 3, Mukku Bhushanam, s/o China Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Cultivation, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 4, Velpula Ayyapu Reddy, s/o Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Cultivation, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 5. Karaku Sujatha, W/o Late Yesudasu, Hindu, Aged 64 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpeta. 6. Rentla Suneetha, W/o. Babu Rao, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, R/o D.No.9-5-54/14/6, Flat No.207, R.R Enclave, L.B. Colony, Sivajipalaem, Visakhapatnam - 530013. 7. Jangam Sukanya, W/o Swamydasu, Hindu, Aged 40 years, R/o D.No.6-985/1A, Santhinagar, Jaggaiahpeta Town, Krishna District. “a, Karaku Ravi Kumar, S/o Yesudasu, Hindu, Aged Lvs °38 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, < “Jaggaiahpeta. o> 9, Karaku Bhanumath, W/o Late Yesudasu, Hindu, i ‘Aged 36 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, i Jaggaiahpeta. (Defendants 5 to 9 are added as per orders in IA No. .. Defendants. ~°869/20}7 dt 22.9.2017.) Original Suit No. 27 of 2016: Between: 1, Karaku Yesudasu, S/o Daniel, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Properties, Door No.6-657, Kakani Nager, Jaggaiahpeta Town and Mandal, Krishna District. (Died) 2. Karaku Sujatha, W/o Late Yesudasu, Retired Employee, Aged 64 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpeta. 3. Rentla Suneetha, W/o. Babu Rao, House wife, Aged about 42 years, R/o D.No.9-5-54/14/6, Flat No.207, R.R Enclave, L.B. Colony, Sivajipalaem, Visakhapatnam ~ 530013. 4. Jangam Sukanya, W/o Swamydasu, House wife, Aged 40 years, R/o D.No.6-985/1A, Santhinagar, Jaggaiahpeta Town, Krishna District. 5. Karaku Ravi Kumar, S/o Yesudasu, Cultivation, Aged 38 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpeta. 6. Karaku Bhanumath, W/o Late Yesudasu, Dependant, Aged 36 years, R/o D.No.6-657, Kakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpeta. (Plaintiff 2 to 6 are added as per orders in IA No. 806/2017 dt 22.9.2017.) .. Plaintiffs And Tatineni Naga Babu, S/o Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Employee, R/o D.No.24-3, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 2. Tatineni Satyavathi, W/o. Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged 53 years, House wife, R/o D.No.24-3, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 3. Dodda Subba Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Cultivation, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 4, Dodda Rama Devi, W/o Subba Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, Cultivation, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna istrict. ‘AdapaVenkateswara Reddy, S/o Brahma Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Cultivation, Cultivatian, R/o Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 6. Mandadapu Purnachandra Rao, S/o. a Hindu, Aged about 59 years, Propertigs, R/o.Gowravaram Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 7. Vadlamudi Sambasiva Rao, S/o Venkatrayudu, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, Properties, R/o. Door No.21-17/1-18-1, Madhura Nagar, ..Defendants. Vijayawada. City, Krishna District. These suits are listed on 07.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 died, Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are exparte, Sri. K. V. Subbarao and Sri. A.V.Ramana Murthy, advocates for Defendant Nos.5 to 9, in OS No.94/2013; and Sri. K, V. Subbarao and Sri. A.V.Ramana Murthy, advocates for Plaintiff No.2 to 6, Plaintiff No.1 died, and Sri. B. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Defendants No.1 and 2, defendants Nos.3 to 6 are exparte in OS No.27/2016, and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT The suit i.e., OS No.94/2013 is filed for declaring the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers, agents and associates from interfering .with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. Further sought for declaring the sale deeds vide document Nos.3118/2012, 3119/2012 and 3120/2012 of Sub Registrar, Nandigama are invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiffs as per the plaint in brief are as follows: a) The 1* plaintiff is the son of the 2™ plaintiff and they are residents of Ibrahimpatnam village of Krishna District, whereas the defendants are residents of Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal of Krishna District. The plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule properties by virtue of sale deeds vide document Nos.2717/2007 and 2718/2007. dated 11.06.2007 at SRO, Jaggaiahpeta from one Mandadapu Poorna Chandra Rao and Vadlamudi Sambasiva Rao for valuable consideration. Since then, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties without _~interruption of anybody, as such their names were also mutated in the Revenue Yecords. The Tahsildar recognized the rights of the plaintiffs and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. b) The defendants have no manner of right over the plaint schedule properties. They developed eyesore upon the plaint schedule properties and tried to grab the plaint schedule properties. The 4 plaintiffs raised Subabul crop in the plaint schedule properties, but the defendants used to disturb the plaintiffs by obstructing the plaintiffs in cultivating the plaint schedule properties. In the last week of 2013 i.e., before filing of the suit, all the defendants along with their men entered into the plaint schedule properties claiming that they have right over the plaint schedule properties and threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences. The defendants also abused the plaintiffs and further threatened that they will foist false case against the plaintiffs attracting the offences under SC & ST atrocities Act and that the plaintiffs presented a report before the Vatsavai Police, but the police did not take any action against the defendants. c) At about one day prior to filing of the suit, all the defendants and their men raised galata to encroach the plaint schedule properties and to dispossess the plaintiffs 1 and 2 from the plaint schedule properties. At the intervention of the workers and neighbours, all the defendants and their men left the place by threatening that they will see the end of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The defendants have men and money, but without having any manner of right interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are unable to resist the acts of the defendants and their men. On 07.07.2013 the plaintiffs presented a report before Vatsavai P.S.., but the police did not take the complaint. d) Initially, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction, after filing of the Written statement, the plaint was amended as per the orders in 1A No.1138/2015 dated 20.09.2016 for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction and also for cancellation of sale deeds. e) It is further submitted in the plaint that, the Defendant No.1 obtained sale deeds from the Court in a suit for specific performance, basing on them he got delivery of the property through court are not binding on the plaintiffs 1 and 2. f) The sale deeds obtained from the Court contains a recital that _-the property was delivered before the execution of sale deed in favour of the 1% defendant. But, the 1* defendant filed EA No.26/2013 for delivery ofthe schedule property, which is illegal, invalid and contrary to the recitals in the sale deeds obtained from the Court, basing on the agreement Of sale deeds. The 1* defendant filed suit in OS No.40/2008, OS No.41/2008, OS No.42/2008 on 05.03.2008 for specific 5 performance of agreement of sale, and the same were decreed in his favour on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama but, even prior to that date, i.e.,/on 11.06.2007 the plaintiffs obtained registered sale deeds. 9) The delivery receipt filed by the 1° defendant shows that, the delivery is a paper delivery dt 25.04.2013, which relates to 1422 fasli. The Adangals filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for faslies 1423 and 1424 shows that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, consequently, the said delivery receipt is a created one. The said delivery receipt shows that, the property was delivered from the J.Drs/Dodda Ramadevi, Adapa Venkateswara Rao, Dodda Subba Reddy, Muthavarapu Purnaiah and Muthavarapu Rangaiah by evicting them, but the J.Drs were not in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties on the said date, since, it was already had been transferred to one Poorna Chandra Rao and Sambasiva Rao and they have sold the same to the plaintiffs on 11.06.2007. Hence, the suit. 3. The 1* defendant filed his Written statement denying the material averments inter-alia contended that he is not aware that the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule properties from one Mandadapu Poorna Chandra Rao and V. Sambasiva Rao. The 1* defendant purchased the plaint schedule properties from one D. Subba Reddy, D. Rama Devi and A. Venkateswara Reddy and they executed an agreement of sale on 17.11.2004 for value consideration for an extent of Ac.4.40 cents. As per the terms of the said agreement of sale, the date for performance of the contract was 05.03.2005. But, the said Subba Reddy failed to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration and that the 1* defendant got issued legal notice dated 25.02.2007. Even, after receipt of the notice, the said Subbareddy, D. Ramadevi and A. Venkateswara Reddy failed to execute register sale deeds, but they got issued reply notices dt.07.03.2007 with false allegations. Then, the 1* defendant filed the _-7Butts=.in OS No.42/2008, OS No.40/2008 and OS No.41/2008 respectively, basing on the said agreement of sale deeds, dt.17,11.2004 before the Senior il Judge Court, Nandigama and the same were decreed on 27.07.2009, 21.10.2009 and 18.07.2009 respectively. 6 4. After decreeing the suits, in OS No.40/2008, OS No.41/2008 and OS No.42/2008 for an extent of Ac.0.03 cents, Ac.0.03 cents and Ac.4.40 cents respectively, the 1* defendant filed EP No.15/2010, EP No.16/2010 and EP No.17/2010 for the said suits, in which notices were issued to the J.Drs/Dodda Ramadevi, Adapa Venkateswara Rao, Dodda Subba Reddy, Muthavarapu Purnaiah and Muthavarapu Rangaiah and the sale deeds Nos.3119/2012, 3120/2012 and 3118/2012 were. registered by the court through Sub Registrar, Nandigama. After execution of the said three sale deeds, the 1* defendant filed EP for delivery of the schedule property from the said J.Drs, and that the Court Field Assistant handed over the schedule properties to the,1* defendant on 25.04.2013 in EA No.26/2013 in EP No.44/2012 in OS No.40/2008, EA No.27/2013 in EP No.45/2012 in OS No.41/2008 and EA No.28/2013 in EP No.46/2012 in OS No.42/2008 on behalf of the said D. Subba Reddy, D. Rama Devi and A. Venkateswara Reddy. 5. After delivery of the schedule property, the 1% defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without interruption of anybody. The 1% defendant came to know that, during pendency of the suit the said Subba Reddy, sold away his property to one M. Poorna Chandra Rao and V. Sambasiva Rao. Later, the said M. Poorna Chandra Rao and V. Sambasiva Rao sold away the said properties to the plaintiffs. 6. The plaintiffs have knowledge about the pendency of the suit, but they purchased the plaint schedule property. The execution of the said sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs will come under the Lis pendency and that the purchaser will not get any right over the same. The 1* defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since 25.04.2013 i.e., from the day when the Court handed over the possession to him in EP proceedings. The 1* defendant has been paying all the taxes. The plaintiffs have created cause of action by stating that the defendants obstructed their possession and they had given a report to the police. The plaintiffs did fot, filé"any acknowledgement to show that they had given report to ‘the police: 7 “After amending the plaint, the 1* defendant filed Ad ‘Written * statethent inter-alia contending that, the proposed amendments to the suit not only changed the nature of the suit, but ional 7 also introduced new facts, new reliefs and new cause of action. So, the amended plaint is mis-conceived as sufficient court fee not paid, there is no cause of action to the suit and it is barred by limitation. 8. Originally, the suit was filed on 10.07.2013 for permanent injunction, whereas the proposed amendments are made on 20.09.2016 claiming that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the relief portion, in the served copy of the amended plaint, the relief of the plaintiffs is that declaration of sale deeds executed by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, is not binding on the plaintiffs, is not only mis-conceived, but also misnomer, as the plaintiffs did not pay the court fee. But the amended plaint copy shows that, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration U/s 24 (a) A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act also. 9. The sale deeds executed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama are true, valid and binding not only against the defendants in that suits, but also against those purchasers including the plaintiffs and their vendors M. Poorna Chandra Rao and V, Sambasiva Rao. As the iffs and their vendors are subsequent purchasers, they are plai entitled to claim protection U/s.19(b) of Specific Relief Act on the ground that, the 1° defendant purchased the plaint schedule properties under three agreement of sale deeds dated 17.11.2004 executed by the sald D. Subba Reddy, D. Rama: Devi and A. Venkateswara Reddy in favour of the 1*\ defendant. There is an obligation on the, part of the said three vendors to execute sale deeds and they are not only estopped from alienation of the properties to the third parties, but also if any alienations made, they are subject to the rights of the 1* defendant under the agreement of sale dated 17-11:2004; 10. It is further submitted in the Additional Written statement that, the possession and enjoyment of the 1* defendant is through due process of law by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama and the 1* defendant was inducted in physical possession of the plaint schedule properties, as such this defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the plaint schedule properties by virtue of said three sale deeds. The plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for setting aside the said decrees and also ought to have claimed that, the decrees obtained by the 1* defendant are fraud. In the absence of stich reliefs, those decrees of the Senior 8 Civil Judge, Nandigama not only binds on the defendant in that suit ie., who are the vendors of the defendant, but also binds on the plaintiffs. 11. It is further submitted in the Additional Written statement that, the recitals in the registered sale deeds obtained by the plaintiffs are only hearsay evidence and they do not stand against a decree of competent civil court and further, mere registration of the documents by the plaintiffs do not convey any title. The suit filed by the plaintiffs in the present forum is not maintainable and the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the values of the properties are steeply increased and the plaintiffs purposefully filed the suit to get wrongful gain to themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. 12. The 1* defendant being bonafide purchaser and having physical possession over the plaint schedule properties filed the suit OS No.27/2016 against the plaintiffs and his vendors for declaring him as absolute owner and enjoyer of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties in that suit who are the properties in this suit, with a relief of consequential permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the 1* defendant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and that sought for dismissal of the suit with costs. 13. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial by my Predecessor: 1) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? 2) Whether the defendant No.1 got the possession of the schedule property by virtue of Court orders in EA Nos. 26/2013, 27/2013 and 28/2013 in EP. Nos.44/2012, 45/2012 and 46/2012 in OS. Nos.40/2008, 41/2008 and 42/2008 dated 25.04.2013 ? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? 4) To what relief ? 14. Basing on the Amendment plaint and Additional written Statement, the following issues are settled: 9 1) Whether the sale deeds I.e., Documents 3118/12, 3119/12 and 31120/12 on the file of Sub-register, Nandigama executed by Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama are invalid and not binding on the plaintiff ? 2) Whether the suit in the present forum is not maintainable, bad for non-joinder of parties and mis-joinder cause of action as contended by the defendant ? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of suit schedule properties and the relief of consequential permanent injunction as prayed ? 4) Whether the suit barred by limitation ? 15. Pleadings in OS No.27/2016: This suit ie., OS No.27/2016 filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the absolute owners and it Schedule Properties with a enjoyers of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the Pl consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants, followers and relatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiffs 2 to 6 over Item Nos.1 to 3 of the Plaint Schedule Properties in any manner whatsoever and for the costs of the suit. The brief averments of the plaint in OS No.27/2016 are as follows: a) The 1* Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants 1 to 7. Subsequently on the death of the 1* Plaintiff, Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are impleaded in the suit. The 2" Plaintiff is the mother, 3%, 4" and 6” Plaintiffs are daughters and 5" Plaintiff is the son of 1* Plaintiff. The 1% Plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the Plaint Schedule Property consisting of three Items to an extent of Ac.10.40 cents. The 1* Plaintiff purchased the Plaint Schedule Property under three Non- possessory Agreements of Sale deeds dt.17.11.2004 from the Defendants 3 to 5 @ Rs.1,55,008/- per acre. On the date of execution of agreements of sale, the 1* Plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- each to the _7

    You might also like